Conservation of angular momentum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of angular momentum in collapsing nebulae and its implications for the universe. Participants explore whether the universe could possess net angular momentum, with some expressing curiosity about the concept and its potential implications. The idea of overall rotation in the universe is considered, suggesting that if present, it would induce frame-dragging effects that could render such rotation unobservable, in line with Mach's principle. The conversation also touches on the conservation of angular momentum of galaxies within the context of a contracting universe and quantum gravity theories. Overall, the topic raises intriguing questions about the nature of angular momentum on a cosmic scale.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
Last edited by a moderator:
Space news on Phys.org
I think i have found the ansewer, in that the universe has no (net) angular momentum?
 
wolram said:
I think i have found the answer, in that the universe has no (net) angular momentum?

Wolram, I really like this question. I haven't responded because I'm not sure enough. I'm hoping someone else will reply. My hunch is that at least according to the presently available theory the universe could have net angular momentum. I find the idea a curious one, almost bizarre. I would like to be told a reason that it could not have net angular momentum, or that the idea of a global angular momentum is meaningless. But I don't know of such a reason. So I remain intrigued, hoping some others will intervene.
 
marcus said:
Wolram, I really like this question. I haven't responded because I'm not sure enough. I'm hoping someone else will reply. My hunch is that at least according to the presently available theory the universe could have net angular momentum. I find the idea a curious one, almost bizarre. I would like to be told a reason that it could not have net angular momentum, or that the idea of a global angular momentum is meaningless. But I don't know of such a reason. So I remain intrigued, hoping some others will intervene.

If the universe did have an overall rotation, that would induce frame-dragging in the same direction. According to Mach's principle, that would be expected to have the effect that the rotation would be unobservable. GR only approximately satisfies Mach's principle, but it seems that within GR the frame-dragging effect would be of at least the right order of magnitude to make the rotation unobservable.
 
Jonathan Scott said:
If the universe did have an overall rotation, that would induce frame-dragging in the same direction. According to Mach's principle, that would be expected to have the effect that the rotation would be unobservable. GR only approximately satisfies Mach's principle, but it seems that within GR the frame-dragging effect would be of at least the right order of magnitude to make the rotation unobservable.

Johnathan, i am not sure if we are talking about the same thing, i was wondering about the angular momentum of galaxies ,and if this is conserved in a shrinking space down to the limits of the hypothetical bounce in qg theory.
 
wolram said:
Johnathan, i am not sure if we are talking about the same thing, i was wondering about the angular momentum of galaxies ,and if this is conserved in a shrinking space down to the limits of the hypothetical bounce in qg theory.

I haven't a clue what that bounce stuff assumes, but the general idea should hold; if the universe is described by GR, and appears to be rotating on average relative to some point in some frame of reference, then GR predicts that an observer at the origin of that apparent rotation will have their frame dragged around with it at a rate which increases with the fraction of the universe that is involved and is of the order of 1 to 1 when the whole universe is involved. That means that according to that observer, the universe will not appear to be rotating, as predicted by Mach's principle (although for GR the Mach's principle effect cannot possibly be exact - which seems somewhat irritating, when it could be so neat).
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top